[SAC] /backup/ directory on Backup-VM

[Martin Spott]

Hi Frank,

On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:59:27AM -0400, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
> Martin Spott wrote:

>  > ....  that we're probably just having a different understanding with
>> respect to the meaning of a "backup" machine/server.
>> I'm familiar with backup servers in commercial environments - which
>> typically are dedicated machines to serve just this single purpose. The
>> "OSGeo Backup VM" instead seems more to end up as a dump site for
>> (partially antiquated) archives - with little understanding of what
>> modern backup offers ;-)

> I'm not sure what to make of the above.  I'll assume it does not imply
> an action item for me.

No, at least not immediately. But if you/we are about making a
consistent directory layout among the different servers, then we should
probably take maybe not all but at least most of the reasonable options
into account.

1.) Why are people running 'rsync' synchronization when a real backup
    system is available !?

2.) I'm proposing a directory nomenclature where mostly static data as
    well as database dumps are living below just one or two directories
    (let's say "/var/www/" and "/osgeo/") and these are going to be
    included into the regular, daily backup procedure. Volatile stuff
    like live databases, SVN, LDAP and the like, all the stuff which is
    better saved via a dump, are supposed to live in their usual
    places.

3.) The backup system, at least to my understanding, is much different
    from the more or less visible "OSGeo services" - so why is its
    storage directory forced into the same directory nomenclature !?

Cheers,
	Martin.
-- 
 Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--------------------------------------------------------------------------